Forum:Natural Selection
CrellinEtreyu 03:35, December 30, 2010 (UTC) Basically, difficulty scaling depending on how you attempt to defeat monsters, based on how you have in the past. This is similar to how things like trap resistance and status resistance work, only on a much larger scale, and that these effects do not end after battle. Let's say you fight lots of Rathian. Every time you fight it, you fight with a Dragon element greatsword, trapping it primarily with shock traps and using many flash bombs, and the tail is always the first severance you make. From that, future Rathian would increase in Dragon res and decrease in, let's say Thunder res (the decreasable stat being set and viable, so that it never becomes weak to fire). The skin on their tail would also become thicker. As well as this, the Rathian would build a resistance to the signature move of the greatsowrd (the charge attack). The use of shock traps would mean that pitfalls become more effective while shock trap durations are shortened, and the overuse of flash bombs would mean that flashing a monster lasts for a shorter time. After the Rathian had built up these resistances, a good idea would be to pitfall trap it instead, not flash it, and use a different weapon type to fight it. Monster behaviour could also be affected by how you fight it. For example, if you were the kind of person to begin charging an attack behind a Tigrex ready for when it turns to face you, the Tigrex species could adapt to faster turning, to back jumping, or to spinning to knock the hunter over. The point of "natural selection" would be for a monster to learn how you most commonly fight it and be able to adapt (as a species) to account for this. This would ensure that a player could not keep the same tactic for every battle with a particular monster. It is an interesting idea however going by that logic, using weapons, monsters armour will increase and HP will eventually become impossible to kill. Also it wouldn't make sense since it would invalidate the entire point of elemental weapons if monster become immune to it, certain quests such as capture missions would become impossible if shock trap and pitfalls stop working for a monster as realistically people use both so would either cancel each other out or end up immune to both. Plus natural selection doesn't really work like that or that quickly.--Iceus 22:27, December 15, 2010 (UTC) Not too sure about this one, surely that would make the monsters even less unique if by the end of it they would all have the same resistances, i.e. null everything by the context you describe... colour variants would lose a valuable part of their differentiation and as Iceus mentions elemental weapons would be rendered redundant. At the same time ranged specialists have it hard enough as it is, their main neccessity of attack is elemental rounds half of the time..would you take that away from them? Rathalos Samurai Zaka 22:33, December 15, 2010 (UTC) But... if you killed the Rathian then how would the others adapt? Lord Invictus Pane 03:04, December 16, 2010 (UTC) Lord Invictus Pane has a point. If you kill a monster, it's dead and can't learn from its fight with you because it's... dead. Maybe if you failed to kill the monster it could be stronger the next time you fight it, but why would you want that, anyway? If you couldn't beat it before, why would you want it to be harder next time? 21:07, December 16, 2010 (UTC)Cobalt I disagree with this suggestion. Say you repeatedly fight a Blos, who are immune to pitfalls, and you repeatedly capture them with shock traps. If natural selection DOES occur like you say it, won't the Blos be eventually impossible to capture due to its new resistance to shock traps and immunity to pitfalls (Assuming that you're too weak to kill it at all)? Chinese Stickman 03:27, December 30, 2010 (UTC) @Stickman: Blos aren't immune to pitfalls in Tri...Cobalt32 03:35, December 30, 2010 (UTC)Cobalt32 @Cobalt: Well I didn't know that! I been playing MHP2G/MHFU for my entire hunter life and I just started on MHP3rd! -Stickman The problem with this idea (first,I want to make it clear that,while I don't know everyhting,I have studied science extensively) is that it goes against one of the fundamental laws of evolution,in that evolution is not controlled by ''physical ''changes,but by alterations in the sequencing of the genome.Therefore,if a monster's tail is cut off,that doesn't mean that (assuming the monster survives) the tails of its offspring will be more heavily armored.CrellinEtreyu 03:43, December 30, 2010 (UTC) @Crellin: Exactly. Evolution isn't the creation of new genes, it's the drawing out of pre-existing genes in order to allow a species to adapt to its environment. Of course, this is all invalid if the monster dies, so extensively killing monsters with the same element won't necessarily improve the species' resistance to that element. Even if there were specimens that had higher resistance to that element than the rest, it's all moot if you kill it, as it would be unable to pass on its high resistance genes cuz it's dead.Cobalt32 03:53, December 30, 2010 (UTC)Cobalt32